# Just One More Tax On the Poor



## F. Prefect (Jan 14, 2007)

I realize this discussion is basically based upon the higher proposed tax on cigars, but what is truly a crime on the part of our federal government is the continued increases in the taxes on cigarettes.

Far and away the largest group of consumers of cigarettes are those in the lower 1/3 of annual income and thus the least able to bear the largest burden of a seemingly endless string of tobacco tax increases which have not made a significant reduction in the consumption of cigarettes at all by those in this income bracket. The result has been a significant decrease in the overall standard of living by those in this group.

The Volstead Act attempted to ban the use of alcohol by simply banning it by law. The result was, of course, far from successful. The government is now trying to ban tobacco through the use of taxes implemented gradually. It's only a matter of time until black market tobacco products will become as profitable as shine during prohibition.

Governments need to learn that when a substantial percentage of the population wishes to engage in a particular activity, any attempts by a federal government to regulate such activities will, in the end, only make matters worse. Stop the ridiculous taxation on tobacco.

F. Prefect


----------



## taltos (Feb 28, 2006)

Ford, I have long liked your posts in the alt cigars and pipes groups. I think that an argument could be made on the federal level as has been done on several state levels that there is a racial bias on the cigarette tax increases since a higher percentage of non-whites smoke cigarettes than whites. It is true that many of these folks are those the least able to pay for increased taxes. That being said, I would prefer that cigarettes bear the burden for any increased taxes rather than cigars or pipe tobacco. I just hate that when some do-gooder wants to enhance the "Nanny State", they rely on a "Sin Tax" and it always falls on tobacco since the alcohol lobby has far more political power and influence. In the Socialist State of Massachusetts, the last tobacco tax increase was earmarked for smoking cessation education and help. It is now going into the general fund. So, they not only screw us but they lie about where the money is going.


----------



## F. Prefect (Jan 14, 2007)

taltos said:


> Ford, I have long liked your posts in the alt cigars and pipes groups. I think that an argument could be made on the federal level as has been done on several state levels that there is a racial bias on the cigarette tax increases since a higher percentage of non-whites smoke cigarettes than whites. It is true that many of these folks are those the least able to pay for increased taxes. That being said, I would prefer that cigarettes bear the burden for any increased taxes rather than cigars or pipe tobacco. I just hate that when some do-gooder wants to enhance the "Nanny State", they rely on a "Sin Tax" and it always falls on tobacco since the alcohol lobby has far more political power and influence. In the Socialist State of Massachusetts, the last tobacco tax increase was earmarked for smoking cessation education and help. It is now going into the general fund. So, they not only screw us but they lie about where the money is going.


Thank you for the complement and I too have long had thoughts along the same lines, but without the data to back it up, I have yet to post anything regarding race and tobacco taxes although I have always assumed there were probably more Black cigarette smokers in all age groups than Whites. But if the government is silly enough to try to make us believe that cigarette smoking will increase medicare costs when cigarette smokers have been shown to live several years less than non cigarette smokers and many wouldn't even be alive to collect the benefits, I wouldn't put it by them to try to get the general public to buy in to just about any load of crap they think they can get away with. And if they continue to increase cigarette taxes, we may even have cheaper cigarettes in the future, but the profits from those smokes with be going into the coffers of organized crime rather than to the federal government.

F. Prefect


----------



## Silound (May 22, 2007)

Cigar smokers are falling bigger victim to the special interest lobby groups right now, not so much the target of "Sin Taxes". We are the bone being thrown to the cigarette companies to keep taxes on cigarettes down.

A figure I read said that there were like 140 billion packs of cigarettes sold last year, as opposed to 5 billion cigars. Regardless of the exact numbers, we can probably all agree that cigar sales, both in quantity and dollar value, make up _only a fraction_ of the number of cigarette packs and dollars. We all know that the chemicals in cigarettes make them far more addictive than the nicotine in cigars is, and that most cigarette smokers will continue to buy them due to that addiction.

What is happening really is that the tobacco lobbyist groups are trying to protect the profits of cigarettes by keeping addictive products affordable, while allowing the less profitable and non-addictive cigars bear the brunt of the tax. This is solely for the purpose of keeping the price low so people will keep buying cigarettes.

However, as one wise member of this forum said somewhere, you can shear a sheep repeatedly for it's life, but you can only skin it once. We, as cigar smokers, are in the process of being skinned.


----------



## thunderbucks (Mar 21, 2006)

In as much as I am 110% against any proposed tobacco taxes (both cigars and cigarettes), I find the defense of race to be ignorant and unnecessary. I mean let's think here...do we really think the government's purpose of such taxes are just to disadvantage non-whites and keep those in poverty in poverty? I hardly think such is the case. I see no reason other than "helping the insurance plan" and trying to drive away smokers with an insane tax hike.


----------



## RPB67 (Mar 26, 2005)

taltos said:


> Ford, I have long liked your posts in the alt cigars and pipes groups. I think that an argument could be made on the federal level as has been done on several state levels that there is a racial bias on the cigarette tax increases since a higher percentage of non-whites smoke cigarettes than whites. It is true that many of these folks are those the least able to pay for increased taxes. That being said, I would prefer that cigarettes bear the burden for any increased taxes rather than cigars or pipe tobacco. I just hate that when some do-gooder wants to enhance the "Nanny State", they rely on a "Sin Tax" and it always falls on tobacco since the alcohol lobby has far more political power and influence. In the Socialist State of Massachusetts, the last tobacco tax increase was earmarked for smoking cessation education and help. It is now going into the general fund. So, they not only screw us but they lie about where the money is going.


You should know better....you live were ?

You live in the same state I do TAXachussetts !!!


----------



## drawfour (Aug 22, 2006)

RPB67 said:


> You should know better....you live were ?
> 
> You live in the same state I do TAXachussetts !!!


Also referred to as "Mass-a-taxes".


----------



## F. Prefect (Jan 14, 2007)

Silound said:


> Cigar smokers are falling bigger victim to the special interest lobby groups right now, not so much the target of "Sin Taxes". We are the bone being thrown to the cigarette companies to keep taxes on cigarettes down.
> 
> A figure I read said that there were like 140 billion packs of cigarettes sold last year, as opposed to 5 billion cigars. Regardless of the exact numbers, we can probably all agree that cigar sales, both in quantity and dollar value, make up _only a fraction_ of the number of cigarette packs and dollars. We all know that the chemicals in cigarettes make them far more addictive than the nicotine in cigars is, and that most cigarette smokers will continue to buy them due to that addiction.
> 
> ...


I would not disagree with most or any of what you are saying. If there is one product that has been taxed at historically high levels, it would be tobacco. Cigars have actually escaped many of the increases placed on cigarettes over the past 10 years or so. Witness the lower price on cigarettes with brown paper and called cigars. My only point being that if they're bound and determined to keep adding increasingly higher taxes on tobacco, I would like to see it done on a uniform basis, and not for the reasons most would think. If they finally suceed in getting the price of brand name cigarettes (which as you point out are the most additive tobacco product) up to say, the 50.00-60.00/ctn range, we will see a black market in all tobacco products and I'm not talking about guys selling tobacco products out of the trunk of their car. It will be organized.

Many may doubt that cigarette prices could reach 50.00/ctn., but the same people would have sworn 5 years ago that gasoline would never approach 3.00/gal.

But there is one very important fact one which we are in complete agreement. We ARE being skinned, and they're not about to shoot the canary while it's singing. But if history will tell us anything in regard to matters such as this, there is a point when the canary WILL stop, and personally I think we are nearing that point at present.

F. Prefect


----------



## omowasu (Aug 9, 2006)

F. Prefect said:


> I would not disagree with most or any of what you are saying. If there is one product that has been taxed at historically high levels, it would be tobacco. Cigars have actually escaped many of the increases placed on cigarettes over the past 10 years or so. Witness the lower price on cigarettes with brown paper and called cigars. My only point being that if they're bound and determined to keep adding increasingly higher taxes on tobacco, I would like to see it done on a uniform basis, and not for the reasons most would think. If they finally suceed in getting the price of brand name cigarettes (which as you point out are the most additive tobacco product) up to say, the 50.00-60.00/ctn range, we will see a black market in all tobacco products and I'm not talking about guys selling tobacco products out of the trunk of their car. It will be organized.
> 
> Many may doubt that cigarette prices could reach 50.00/ctn., but the same people would have sworn 5 years ago that gasoline would never approach 3.00/gal.
> 
> ...


Its already here to some degree. There are whole groups of cigarette buyers in Illinois, for example, that pool together and drive to Indiana to purchase cigarettes by the carton, as their taxes are 1/2 of Illinois. It equals to lost revenue for the state, plain and simple.

There are sources for cigarettes that are almost tax free in most areas, and people will use those resources instead of paying the jacked up, overtaxed price in many cases.

Or, one can always roll their own cigarettes, probably end up with a better product, and save a LOT of money in the process.

I am not a cigarette smoker, but where there is a means there is a way. This has been an interesting thread!


----------



## Sisyphus (Oct 9, 2005)

thunderbucks said:


> I find the defense of race to be ignorant and unnecessary.


Totally agree. And any case, the racial argument is bogus because the actual statistics generally do NOT show a higher incidence of smoking among non-whites.

Percentage of smokers (2005 CDC data):

Whites (Caucasian) 20.9 %
African-Americans 20.8 %
Hispanics 17.3 %
Asian/Pacific Islanders 11.8 %
American Indians/Alaska Natives	34.8 %
Other/Multi-racial 27.6 %

I doubt the tax is aimed at Native Americans.

-Ken


----------



## F. Prefect (Jan 14, 2007)

Sisyphus said:


> Totally agree. And any case, the racial argument is bogus because the actual statistics generally do NOT show a higher incidence of smoking among non-whites.
> 
> Percentage of smokers (2005 CDC data):
> 
> ...


----------



## billybarue (Mar 20, 2006)

There is a fairly robust black market in cigarettes. No statistics to back it up, but the black market on the Canadian Border (selling to Canada) is huge.

And you're right, the increase in taxes will generate an ever increasing "black market" trade. I read a comment that if cigars are taxed as high as is being proposed, than we will see trade in cigars in similar manner that Cuban cigars are sold. Government will constantly search for tax sources. So called sin taxes are a natural first choice, and most likely to generate a black market. Stats on how the government balances increased tax revenue versus the amount of black market they create would be interesting to see.

Another "Tax" sometimes referred to as the "stupid tax" (don't mean to offend anyone) is state lotteries. From what I know, much of the revenue is for educational programs. Tha is great, but I would venture to say (and no stats to back it up) that the majority of lottery tickets are purchased by those who can ill-afford to sacrifice those funds. I hope their monies "donated" are used to educate their children NOT to buy lottery tickets. Lotteries are nothing more than state sponsored gambling, where the chance of winning is so remote, that it truly is nothing more than a donation to the state revenuer.

FWIW,

BillyBarue


----------



## Sisyphus (Oct 9, 2005)

F. Prefect said:


> Thanks for providing some accurate numbers and I must admit I find them a little surprising, particularly the numbers for Asian smokers


That surprised me a bit, as well. But other data sources show very similar results. It does seem to be true that smoking (cigarettes, not cigars) is somewhat more prevalent at the lower end of the socio-economical scale. But regardless, as others have pointed out, tobacco and most other consumption taxes have a much greater impact on the poor, who can ill afford increases in out-of-pocket expenses.



F. Prefect said:


> Check out https://www.lilbrown.com/index.cfm or http://www.alleganytrail.com/shop/home.php and many others as well.


I'm familiar with Lil' Brown. Not sure what's going on there, as they are no longer accepting credit cards.

-Ken


----------



## F. Prefect (Jan 14, 2007)

billybarue said:


> There is a fairly robust black market in cigarettes. No statistics to back it up, but the black market on the Canadian Border (selling to Canada) is huge.
> 
> Another "Tax" sometimes referred to as the "stupid tax" (don't mean to offend anyone) is state lotteries. From what I know, much of the revenue is for educational programs. Tha is great, but I would venture to say (and no stats to back it up) that the majority of lottery tickets are purchased by those who can ill-afford to sacrifice those funds. I hope their monies "donated" are used to educate their children NOT to buy lottery tickets. Lotteries are nothing more than state sponsored gambling, where the chance of winning is so remote, that it truly is nothing more than a donation to the state revenuer.
> 
> ...


Don't get me started on state promoted lotteries. It turns my stomach to watch a single mother with 2 small children receiving her change for a pack of cigarettes in lottery tickets and scatching her children's welfare away on the convienence store counter.:sb

F. Prefect


----------



## Silound (May 22, 2007)

F. Prefect said:


> Don't get me started on state promoted lotteries. It turns my stomach to watch a single mother with 2 small children receiving her change for a pack of cigarettes in lottery tickets and scatching her children's welfare away on the convienence store counter.:sb
> 
> F. Prefect


A-****ing-men.

Here in Louisiana, I see lower income people (and I'm not picking out any sect or group, because half of Louisiana is below the national poverty line anyway) go buy a 40oz or a flask and a couple tickets, sit outside, scratch them off, then beg for change "for gas for my car down the road" from people when they don't "hit the big one."

There's one guy who practically lives at the Hit'n'Run near my old apartment. They owners came out and shooed him away, so he stood on the other side of the street and shouted at people. He's there every day, same old story.

Honestly, eerrgh!


----------



## F. Prefect (Jan 14, 2007)

Silound said:


> A-****ing-men.
> 
> Here in Louisiana, I see lower income people (and I'm not picking out any sect or group, because half of Louisiana is below the national poverty line anyway) go buy a 40oz or a flask and a couple tickets, sit outside, scratch them off, then beg for change "for gas for my car down the road" from people when they don't "hit the big one."
> 
> ...


It's truly one of the highest forms of hypocracy. The states bitch and moan they are unable to increase benefits to the poorest of their residents, and at the same time target these same people with these "pot o' gold" lotteries.

One would think they would at least have enough morals to return most of the monies they have collected through this voluntary tax to the people most in need, but it seems to always go elsewhere.

But it is a voluntary tax and one could easily argue that the poor should have enough sense to not participate in such legal gambling that barely pays back 50 cents on the dollar, but it's usually the least educated and intelligent people who make up the lower income brackets and any chance to get out of the rut they have lived in all their lives is all too tempting, particularly the way it is promoted by the states.

NO, the poor should not participate in state lotteries, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand why they do. But what's truly a mystery is why the states allow this activity to take place and spend law enforcement dollars trying to shut down some local bookie taking bets on NFL games. Perhaps they want to avoid the competition. Amazing.

F. Prefect


----------



## Coffee Grounds (Feb 14, 2007)

The poor are always getting the short end of the stick.

Casino's are the last place where the poor can have all their money taken form them legally. 

The poor will be hurt the most by this schip policy tax increase which will not go through. The poor are already on welfare/medicaid so the schip policy will not insure their children because the state is doing that already.

Then when if this BS tax bill goes through all the smart tobacco users will buy on the web and not pay any taxes or take advantage of cigarette bootlegging which will occur. So then you will have this socialized medicine policy that needs funding from another source. Next in line will be booze.

It blows me away how democrats want to keep the poor, poor so that they can give them handouts and keep them voting for them.


----------



## Sisyphus (Oct 9, 2005)

Coffee Grounds said:


> It blows me away how democrats want to keep the poor, poor so that they can give them handouts and keep them voting for them.


I was right with you until I came to this bit of logic. I seriously doubt that the "democrats" are ingenious enough to contrive such a convoluted conspiracy. You give them too much credit. It's about as far-fetched as the loonies claiming Bush planned the attack of 9-11.

While I'll certainly agree that many government policies are counter-productive in practice, this is not the intent of lawmakers. It is because lawmakers are too shortsighted to see (or more precisely, to care) beyond the next election or fundraiser.

-Ken


----------



## F. Prefect (Jan 14, 2007)

Coffee Grounds said:


> The poor are always getting the short end of the stick.
> 
> Casino's are the last place where the poor can have all their money taken form them legally.
> 
> ...


Booze 'should' be the first in line but we'll never see it happen. It's a little know fact that alcohol costs the US economy several times the amount than does tobacco when lost work, broken families, auto deaths and injuries, among others are included with the multitude of health issues tied directely to alcohol abuse are taken into account. And compared to tobacco, the taxes are about as close meaningless as you can get. And it can be purchased right off your supermarket shelf with not even a warning label on the containers.

No mystery really. Good lobbyists are worth every penny and the alcoholic beverage industry is laughing all the way to the bank.

F. Prefect


----------



## n3uka (Nov 13, 2006)

gotta love our congressmen. Got this from mine today. I wonder if they actually believe their own bs?



> Thank you for contacting me about your concerns about raising federal cigarette taxes. I appreciate hearing from you about this amendment.
> 
> I appreciate knowing of your opposition to taxing cigarettes. Unfortunately, we disagree on this particular issue.
> 
> ...


Maybe they could skip voting themselves a pay raise one year and use that money for the public good.


----------



## F. Prefect (Jan 14, 2007)

n3uka said:


> gotta love our congressmen. Got this from mine today. I wonder if they actually believe their own bs?
> 
> Maybe they could skip voting themselves a pay raise one year and use that money for the public good.


I fully admit I don't have the numbers to back up this argument, but this idea of smokers causing the cost of healthcare to sky rocket smells a little funny.

If we're to believe smokers are going to die at a much younger age, that would mean many smokers would never use a dime of the medicare they were entitled to, while at the same time, non smokers would be living to grand old ages, with probably at least 1 trip to the hospital per year and propably at least 4 visits to their physicians for nothing more than "checkups".

Guys, you just can't have it both ways. Are smokers really costing Medicare money or in reality are they in fact saving the system billions of dollars by living shorter lives?:sb:2

F. Prefect


----------



## Silound (May 22, 2007)

Typically, I don't take stances on anything broad like this but...

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can spend a sizable portion of money each year on items like alcohol, tobacco products, and gambling should be able to spend the necessary money for proper health care and coverage. Otherwise, it's a mis allocation of assets. They should not be allowed to waste public or government money on things that cause them to need said care and coverage unless they can provide it for themselves.

The system fails because, as someone said, woman X can walk into a quickie mart, spend her welfare check on scratch off's and spend maybe $30 on food for her two kids. And she keeps getting money.


Personally, I support the way Louisiana works it's food stamps. You get a debit card which is good for so much per month, called the Louisiana Purchase Card. It can't be used to buy alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets, or other non-food items of that nature. You can't even use it to buy magazines and books. It's only good at grocery stores and WalMart-esque stores, not at bowling alleys, McDonald's, or Office Depot. You can't use it to buy prepared food anywhere, no use it on non-essential non-food items. You can't even get cash for it in an ATM or get cash back. It's designed to be strictly for food and neccessary things like diapers or over the counter medicine.


----------



## dennis569 (Jan 16, 2007)

Make me Queen for a day and there would be NO social programs.
There is no reason to be that poor in America. 
Lazy bastards.
Steer me towards the nearest black market .


----------



## Da Klugs (Jan 8, 2005)

dennis569 said:


> Make me Queen for a day.


New pumps $ 25.00
Makeover and harido $ 250.00

Out of context partial quotes on a cigar board....

Priceless!


----------



## Mister Moo (Sep 8, 2005)

DaKlugs said:


> New...$250.00...cigar....Priceless!


Wah wah wah. The die is cast and here's another out of context quote from the man who has shown Switzerland, and us, how to prepare for the 500% cigar tax. 3-year old Rocky Patels will be outperforming Dow Jones averages by this time next week.

No politician in his right mind could reject medical care for children over cheaper cigars; I wrote and phoned Liddy Dole half a dozen times and didn't hear back from the old tobacco girl. I am going to convert my humi into a bedroom and my bedroom into a humi for space to cover my retirement plan. See the change/opportunity, gentlemen, and embrace it.

Personally, I'm a huge fan of highly regressive taxes that make the poor support our national aims. My theory for a national energy policy, by the way, includes an element the same as the tobacco tax program. I think the gov should legislate LOWER vehicle fleet economy averages, not higher ones. Over a period of five years SUVs should be required to get LESS than 10mpg and passenger cars should be held to a maximum of 11mpg. You want to see alternate fuel resources and mass transit developed while reducing pollution and greenhouses gasses? You want freedom from arab oil? Simple. Demand lower fuel economy from your representatives. This cigar thing is the tip of my iceberg. (This is economics and public policy, by the way, not politics. I don't do politics.)


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

drawfour said:


> Also referred to as "Mass-a-taxes".


What irony! The land of the Boston Tea Party is now known as "Mass-a-taxes."


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

Silound said:


> A-****ing-men.
> 
> Here in Louisiana, I see lower income people (and I'm not picking out any sect or group, because half of Louisiana is below the national poverty line anyway) go buy a 40oz or a flask and a couple tickets, sit outside, scratch them off, then beg for change "for gas for my car down the road" from people when they don't "hit the big one."
> 
> ...


Not to mention the fact that even with the lottery money the state makes being "earmarked" for education, the public schools in most areas of the state suck. (I live in St. Tammany Parish which for some odd reason usually scores near the top in school testing.)

That's one of the problems with politicians. They tell everyone "Pass this tax and we're use the money for education." Then they still can't fund payraises for teachers without claiming they need more tax revenue. Why? Because the take the money for freakin pet projects that put money in their own pockets!

And, while I'm ranting, Louisiana has a great program called TOPS which was designed to pay the college tuition for any student graduating from a Louisiana High School to attend a public university in the state. What happens? First the POLITICIANS start altering the program which was not set up with state money, to make it more difficult for the students to qualify or stay on the program and then the schools start raising the fees and costs not covered by TOPS to get more money out of the students. What really pissed me off was when one administrator at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond told one of my daughters that she shouldn't complain about higher fees because she could afford to pay them since she was on TOPS and didn't have to pay tuition!

Okay. I'm off:sb


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

Sisyphus said:


> I was right with you until I came to this bit of logic. I seriously doubt that the "democrats" are ingenious enough to contrive such a convoluted conspiracy. You give them too much credit. It's about as far-fetched as the loonies claiming Bush planned the attack of 9-11.
> 
> While I'll certainly agree that many government policies are counter-productive in practice, this is not the intent of lawmakers. It is because lawmakers are too shortsighted to see (or more precisely, to care) beyond the next election or fundraiser.
> 
> -Ken


Sorry Ken but I have to almost agree with Coffee Grounds. There is nothing convoluted about the Democrats wanting to maintain their grip on a voting block by always telling them "We're on your side. We want to give you more." When in reality what the democrats do is basically foster class warfare by pointing fingers at people who hard to make money and say it's unfair that they have money and you don't.

Look at the hypocrisy of it. On the one hand the democrats oppose tax breaks that would benefit what "used" to be considered middle class - those making under $60,000 per year. On the other hand is the SCHIP which would extend free insurance to 25 year old children in families that make up to $80,000 per year.


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

Silound said:


> Typically, I don't take stances on anything broad like this but...
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can spend a sizable portion of money each year on items like alcohol, tobacco products, and gambling should be able to spend the necessary money for proper health care and coverage. Otherwise, it's a mis allocation of assets. They should not be allowed to waste public or government money on things that cause them to need said care and coverage unless they can provide it for themselves.
> 
> ...


Isn't it strange that Louisiana actually does something right besides throwing parties in New Orleans. I'm just kidding - for all that is wrong with this state, I live here by choice.


----------



## F. Prefect (Jan 14, 2007)

Mister Moo said:


> Wah wah wah. The die is cast and here's another out of context quote from the man who has shown Switzerland, and us, how to prepare for the 500% cigar tax. 3-year old Rocky Patels will be outperforming Dow Jones averages by this time next week.
> 
> Personally, I'm a huge fan of highly regressive taxes that make the poor support our national aims. My theory for a national energy policy, by the way, includes an element the same as the tobacco tax program. I think the gov should legislate LOWER vehicle fleet economy averages, not higher ones. Over a period of five years SUVs should be required to get LESS than 10mpg and passenger cars should be held to a maximum of 11mpg. You want to see alternate fuel resources and mass transit developed while reducing pollution and greenhouses gasses? You want freedom from arab oil? Simple. Demand lower fuel economy from your representatives. This cigar thing is the tip of my iceberg. (This is economics and public policy, by the way, not politics. I don't do politics.)


Excellent post. I've been trying to figure out how to include only out of context material from another post for quite some time. I may have figured it out. No small feat.

You don't do politics? You can't mention public policy and taxes without sinking up to your armpits in politics. But your idea for removing SUVs from our roadways is truly ingenious, but I would take it a step further and make it retroactive.:bn Let 'em walk.:chk

F. Prefect


----------



## Sisyphus (Oct 9, 2005)

macjoe53 said:


> Sorry Ken but I have to almost agree with Coffee Grounds. There is nothing convoluted about the Democrats wanting to maintain their grip on a voting block by always telling them "We're on your side. We want to give you more." When in reality what the democrats do is basically foster class warfare by pointing fingers at people who hard to make money and say it's unfair that they have money and you don't.


MJ, I'm not sure we really disagree, I think it's mostly semantic. The problems are perpetuated because the status quo is institutionally and politically more expedient -- but it was never designed this way. I agree to the effect but not to the intent. It is much easier for the Dems (well, pols in general) to take advantage of an existing reality (as broken as it is) than to create better ones.

Fixing the bureaucracy is not easy when the fixers are perhaps the biggest problem of the bureaucracy to begin with. 

-Ken


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

Sisyphus said:


> Fixing the bureaucracy is not easy when the fixers are perhaps the biggest problem of the bureaucracy to begin with.
> 
> -Ken


Very good point.


----------



## F. Prefect (Jan 14, 2007)

Sisyphus said:


> MJ, I'm not sure we really disagree, I think it's mostly semantic. The problems are perpetuated because the status quo is institutionally and politically more expedient -- but it was never designed this way. I agree to the effect but not to the intent. It is much easier for the Dems (well, pols in general) to take advantage of an existing reality (as broken as it is) than to create better ones.
> 
> Fixing the bureaucracy is not easy when the fixers are perhaps the biggest problem of the bureaucracy to begin with.
> 
> -Ken


And when the "fixers" have completed their handywork, only an act of God, or in most cases more likely an additional fix, is required in a hopeless attempt to unfix what they thought was fixed in the first place.

A politician is not doing his/her job by attempting to maintain the status quo, for it is their misguided believe that doing something wrong is far more likely to get them re-elected than by doing nothing at all.

F. Prefect


----------



## Coffee Grounds (Feb 14, 2007)

Sisyphus said:


> I was right with you until I came to this bit of logic. I seriously doubt that the "democrats" are ingenious enough to contrive such a convoluted conspiracy. You give them too much credit. It's about as far-fetched as the loonies claiming Bush planned the attack of 9-11.
> 
> While I'll certainly agree that many government policies are counter-productive in practice, this is not the intent of lawmakers. It is because lawmakers are too shortsighted to see (or more precisely, to care) beyond the next election or fundraiser.
> 
> -Ken


Oh I think there is a big conspiracy with the democrats to keep their voting classes in place. Look at the recent attempt for immigration policy. You know dam well the dem's want all the Hispanics voting for them and their handout policies. I am so thankful that immigration bill got thrown out because we would lose our two party system in this country within 20 years. 
If all of sudden you have 25 million votes going one direction that would offset the balance of the two party system. I know what you are going to say! That you had republicans fighting for the bill too and you are right but they are also fighting for that vote.

Anyway we cut it I think tobacco will be taxed to death. There is no way we cigar smokers can break a way from being grouped with cigarettes.
I am also against socialized medicine so this SCHIP policy is very scary for me.


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

Heard a good one on the radio today:

"Politicians are not about public service, they are about self-service..."


----------



## Mister Moo (Sep 8, 2005)

F. Prefect said:


> Excellent post. I've been trying to figure out how to include only out of context material from another post...
> F. Prefect


Make it up. Nobody checks anymore. 

My regressive tax propsal doesn't sound like it'll get me many votes. Back to the drawing board.


----------



## Silound (May 22, 2007)

Mister Moo said:


> Make it up. Nobody checks anymore.
> 
> My regressive tax propsal doesn't sound like it'll get me many votes. Back to the drawing board.


So put another ribbon on your SUV!


----------



## Sisyphus (Oct 9, 2005)

Coffee Grounds said:


> Oh I think there is a big conspiracy with the democrats to keep their voting classes in place. Look at the recent attempt for immigration policy. You know dam well the dem's want all the Hispanics voting for them and their handout policies.


Maybe. We're probably straying off topic, but why assume that Hispanics, in particular, are more in favor of "handout policies" than the rest of the population? No one is proposing that we grant citizenship (and the right to vote) to 25 million unemployed, welfare-seeking immigrants. Still, I do agree with you that politicians will woo voters in whatever way possible. But this is the system we have.



Coffee Grounds said:


> Anyway we cut it I think tobacco will be taxed to death. There is no way we cigar smokers can break a way from being grouped with cigarettes.


We cigar smokers are too small of a minority with little voting power.



Coffee Grounds said:


> I am also against socialized medicine so this SCHIP policy is very scary for me.


I used to stand against "socialized medicine" until I lived under such a system for several years. If done correctly, so-called "socialized medicine" can work very well. Nothing is perfect, but our system today is in need of repair. Unfortunately, SCHIP is not the answer.

-Ken


----------



## drawfour (Aug 22, 2006)

macjoe53 said:


> What irony! The land of the Boston Tea Party is now known as "Mass-a-taxes."


That's cause they're fine with being taxed, as long as their representatives are the ones approving the taxing.


----------



## smahley (Apr 27, 2007)

F. Prefect said:


> The Volstead Act attempted to ban the use of alcohol by simply banning it by law. The result was, of course, far from successful. The government is now trying to ban tobacco through the use of taxes implemented gradually. It's only a matter of time until black market tobacco products will become as profitable as shine during prohibition.


Unfortunately the tobacco taxes in Canada are even higher or we could start a new purple gang to run cigars across the frozen ice all winter.


----------



## dennis569 (Jan 16, 2007)

Hey Smahley,
I see you're in Mn. I'm from northern Mn. myself. A little place called Hill City.
90 miles west of Duluth.
Anyway, I'm just a cranky old trucker who's getting sick of all this socialism.
Piss on the poor.
Get a job!


----------



## RETSF (Dec 7, 2006)

Its not a tax on the poor -per say - its more like a fine imposed upon a targeted segement of society. The congressional expectation is that the majority of the US population will continue to what it always does - roll over. There is a number of sheep walking around this country who actually support government intervention in the private lives of other citizens as long as it doesn't effect them directly, plus they aren't paying the extra tax burden to "Support the Childern's Health Care", there is those who support a specific segement of society to be taxed because of the precieved disgusting behavior of some people. Following that group are those gutless individuals who go to vote during election time and then complain about how bad the congress or leadership is - but dosen't have the courage to get involved and actively contact their elected rep. Then their are the elected officals who get elected by saying "I'm one of you" "Big Government needs to Stay out of Our Lives", "No New Taxes"; once in office you and I the little people, the ignorant, the illinformed who are not responsible enough to make the right decisions.....no longer matter. The officals believe that we eledted them because of their views and thats the way they will vote. 

Why is it that only tobacco consumers are targeted to carry the burden of the "Childern's Health Care Program", is this not universal issue and responsibility of the society as a whole; appearently not, Where will the money come fron once the tobacco industry is devistated? To who will the tax burden be levied against? Another Sinful habit maybe?

Yep bit by bit, a certain segment of society is forcing their views on us, pretty soon their will be an additional tax levied against ammounition consumers - if they cant go after the gun MFG go after the ammo. Reduction of carbon emissions, anyone with on=star or other simular device is at risk of the congress comming up with some law that a driver of a newer vehicle cannot drive over X miles an hour of can only use the vehicle during non-peak usage periods. Is it possible, sure it is all it requires is to send a computer change to your vehicle's computer with a speed limiting command. Don't think it can be done? .......I get a vehicle diagonistics report from on-star every month. They know everything about my vehicle, driving habits, speeds, length of use, time spent idle in traffic, ect...... But its OK because its for the childern's health care.... Keep the people fed and entertained and a socialist lead congress can do anything it pleases.


Time for me to get off the :sb


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

dennis569 said:


> Anyway, I'm just a cranky old trucker who's getting sick of all this socialism.
> Piss on the poor.
> Get a job!


:tu


----------

